ACLU Warns of Next Pass At Telecom Immunity

The ACLU has reportedly uncovered another pass at telecom immunity and is urging concerned citizens to speak out against what they call a "dangerous backroom deal." "But now, word comes that House leadership may be working hand-in-hand with Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who has spearheaded efforts to give immunity to law-breaking phone companies that provided mountains of customer data to the government without warrants. As discussions continue, it's critical that House leadership avoid buckling to pressure from the White House or Senator Rockefeller at all costs. House leadership — and every representative — need to draw a line in the sand, by rejecting any compromise that would undo the achievement we fought so hard for in February."

Comments

A letter worth signing.

[inTheLoo]

Please follow the link and sign the ACLU petition and call your local representative. Domestic spying should be exposed and eradicated. The principle is more important than party politics.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[nurb432]

Like they really care about a list, nor is it going to stop the evential passing of a bill..

Actually, it might just serve as the list to first go after when they get total control. You sure you want to make yourself a target?

Re:A letter worth signing.

[mweather]

We must all hang together or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Pentahex]

It has nothing to do with domestic spying, it's just the democrat party throwing a huge bone to one of their special interests. The trial lawyers don't care about national security or even civil rights. But they love class action and contingency fees more than their own mother.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[wizardforce]

Actually, it might just serve as the list to first go after when they get total control. You sure you want to make yourself a target?

cowardice and laziness- good one. I'd much rather do something that might make a difference and make myself a target than to sit back and let everything waste away.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the facts are more important than party politics. If you believe that you're exposing the government's involvement in illegal domestic spying and it turns out to be a legitimate intelligence program that has successfully prevented terrorist plots. And you played a part in revealing it to our nation's sworn enemies, than you just pissed off a lot of Americans.

Moral of the story: Act responsibly, study both sides of an issue and learn to discern.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Copid]

If the ACLU is involved...I just feel dirty signing.

Yeah, I try not to associate myself with the types of people who work to protect free speech, due process, etc. No red-blooded American would.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[KDR_11k]

IMO there's nothing less important in politics than party politics. I don't care what the people who govern put next to their name, their individual performance matters and hiding behind a party as an excuse to not perform to their best is unacceptable. There are more than two political oppinions in the world and the govt should reflect that!

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd much rather do something that might make a difference and make myself a target than to sit back and let everything waste away.

Weren't those the last words of a suicide bomber? The sentiment is there... the phrasing may just be a little odd and revolutionary leaning.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[mikael]

1.7 million people signed the petition against road taxation by GPS satellite tracking. The nearest other petitions only gained 5000 votes.

Then again, 331 MP's of the party proposing this idea were de-elected in the May Day massacre.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, no. The only thing this is aimed it is allowing the lawyers who sued the tobacco companies to put the screws to the telecoms.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Copid]

And what about the many times they interfere with the rights of many?

The "rights" of the many to do what, exactly? So you have a group that protects people from unreasonable searches and restrictions on their speech, but they occasionally make people stop buying religious trinkets with public money. I'd say that on the balance, they're doing a pretty good job of making the US a better place.

They're great when they're doing something you agree with.

That's true of just about every organization. My point is if you don't agree with the majority of what they do, you're probably either not paying attention or you're missing the point of what's important about being American. Or you get all of your news about the ACLU from crackpot sites on the Internet.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Hyppy]

You're the type of person that should never hold any position of power, ever.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Hyppy]

Could you perhaps state some of the reasons that you dislike the ACLU? Be specific.

I like them myself, but I may not be as informed about the negative side of the organization as I should be. Please, enlighten me.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[mog007]

Yes, oh heavens, we shouldn't make the government mad... that would be terrible. I mean, their purpose is to do whatever they wish, and we're supposed to agree with their decisions, they've always got our best interests at heart. It's not like they'll abuse this ability if they get it, we can trust them.

Damn... my sarcasm gland just failed.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[sumdumass]

I'm glad something failed, you were starting to worry me there. For a minute I though we might have to recall you and reprogram your response circuits.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[sumdumass]

Somehow I don't see them doing much of that lately. They are more apt to be making sure the government has a hard time prosecuting child molesters and making sure that registered sex offenders can live close to school yard, making porn freely available to school children by their opposition to filters in libraries, and attempting to crack down on the government for anything it does that seems to be against their political ideology like catching terrorists.

Perhaps I need to over look all the vile and less then honorable stuff they have accomplished so I can see them in a better light like you do.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Copid]

Somehow I don't see them doing much of that lately.

Have you tried the press section of their web site? They're usually pretty busy. The filtered version from WND is probably not as helpful.

They are more apt to be making sure the government has a hard time prosecuting child molesters...

Yep. Due process. It's not just for a few of us any more.

...and making sure that registered sex offenders can live close to school yard...

If by "close to" you mean "a distance so long that it amounts to banishment" I suppose you have a point. Pass a ridiculous law and expect to get it challenged. That's life.

...making porn freely available to school children by their opposition to filters in libraries...

Filters with little or no accountability about what information they censor with a long history of restricting access to a lot of non-pornographic information. Frankly, if a library is having trouble keeping kids from surfing porn on a public terminal in view of everybody, they have some problems that need to be addressed. Don't make it sound like the ACLU simply answered the question, "Should the government give kids free porn" with a resounding "Hellz yeah!"

...and attempting to crack down on the government for anything it does that seems to be against their political ideology like catching terrorists.

Oh, come on. That's over the top, even for the typical anti-ACLU crap. Why does the ACLU hate America? Waaaa! You're smarter than that. Shame on you.
Due process is not just for you and me. It's also for other people. The fact that people who fight for due process will always find themselves working on behalf of people who commit crimes is not a strike against them. It would be like me claiming that the QA department in my company hates our software because they keep finding bugs and rejecting it, and that their real agenda is to see us not make any money.

The question is, how willing are you to bend the rules just because the accused is accused of something you don't like? Do we lower the burden proportionally with the severity of the crime, or do we do our best to treat everybody according to the rule of law? Is due process only unimportant when somebody else's liberties are on the chopping block?

Perhaps I need to over look all the vile and less then honorable stuff they have accomplished so I can see them in a better light like you do.

Perhaps so, or perhaps it would be better to think about what the actual reasons and goals for their actions are. If railroading one particular criminal is more important to you than the broader protections and liberties that our justice system affords us, then I suppose you won't find much common ground with them. If, like me, you admire somebody's ability to stand up for what's right and important, even when it's unpopular or where violating the rule of law might give us some short term satisfaction, then you might be impressed.

Re:A letter worth signing.

[sumdumass]

Have you tried the press section of their web site? They're usually pretty busy. The filtered version from WND is probably not as helpful.

No, I don't usually goto websites for self promoted unbiased information. I visited a site called Nambla.org looking for the marlin brando look alikes and found something entirely different and self promoted that made me think that the unbiased opinions of self promoting websites are in fact biased and misleading.

Yep. Due process. It's not just for a few of us any more.

Well, it doesn't seem to be die process but if that is what your want to believe, far be it from me to keep you from it.

If by "close to" you mean "a distance so long that it amounts to banishment" I suppose you have a point. Pass a ridiculous law and expect to get it challenged. That's life.

No, I mean the standard thousand feet whihc was at state in the last case they took up and won where a person won't have to move away from a school if they bought the property before getting caught for the offense that makes them a sexual offender.

Filters with little or no accountability about what information they censor with a long history of restricting access to a lot of non-pornographic information. Frankly, if a library is having trouble keeping kids from surfing porn on a public terminal in view of everybody, they have some problems that need to be addressed. Don't make it sound like the ACLU simply answered the question, "Should the government give kids free porn" with a resounding "Hellz yeah!"

The filters weren't unaccountable. They were specifically in place for porn and have the ability to make exceptions for legitimate websites in which might have been confused and blocked with porn. If your actually knew anything about what was being purposed, you wouldn't be coming off with that high and mighty attitude.

Oh, come on. That's over the top, even for the typical anti-ACLU crap. Why does the ACLU hate America? Waaaa! You're smarter than that. Shame on you.

I didn't say the ACLU hates America. I said they have become a political organization that works for political goal not related to their mission statements. They are basically a patsy or a tool for the democrats to gain political traction whenever possible.

Due process is not just for you and me. It's also for other people. The fact that people who fight for due process will always find themselves working on behalf of people who commit crimes is not a strike against them. It would be like me claiming that the QA department in my company hates our software because they keep finding bugs and rejecting it, and that their real agenda is to see us not make any money.

First of all, if you real truly think this is about due process, then you are not paying attention to what going on. Your comments are not of an informed perspective. You have probably gotten your information from their own self promoting website which is a tragedy because I thought you were smarter then that.

Second, in a few of the cases that they are attempting to claim due process in relation to a political party, they are actually ignoring due process in the attack they are making, There is a reason that they have been shut down in their court actions. Lets take the domestic spying for instance. ACLU member has said that the only reason they are attempting to sue the telecoms is to collect information about teh Evil Bush Administration. This is after the courts in which DUE PROCESS is being followed and created has said that Bush was right in what he has done. Cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which said he was in the right, then there is United States v. Butenko in 1974 that backed previous court rulings that said judicial review wasn't needed for tap in which the primary purpose was to gather foreign inteligence. In United

Re:A letter worth signing.

[Copid]

No, I don't usually goto websites for self promoted unbiased information.

No, that would be stupid. What would be smart, though, would be using their web site to get a list of the cases they've been involved in and reading the specific arguments they've made.

No, I mean the standard thousand feet whihc was at state in the last case they took up and won where a person won't have to move away from a school if they bought the property before getting caught for the offense that makes them a sexual offender.

There are a lot of cases, so I don't know which one you're referring to or the specific legal arguments that were being made. The one I was referring to was the fatally-flawed (and still active, as far as I know) Iowa law. The distance was 2000 feet, it included places other than schools, made no distinction between actual dangerous child molesters and teenagers who showed poor judgment about who to have sex with, and never expired. Draw a ~1-mile diameter circle around every school, day care center, and in-home child care facility and tell the 40-year-old who had sex with a 15-year-old when he was 19 that he and his family can't live anywhere within those circles and you'll see the problem. These laws are typically shot down (or challenged) because of the bad things they do, not because of the good things they're meant to do.

The filters weren't unaccountable. They were specifically in place for porn and have the ability to make exceptions for legitimate websites in which might have been confused and blocked with porn. If your actually knew anything about what was being purposed, you wouldn't be coming off with that high and mighty attitude.

Again, if you want to debate the specifics, you'll have to be specific. I can't be sure that I know anything about the specific case that you're not citing. I'm simply stating the general arguments that have been made. The reality is that the ACLU comes down on the same side as the ALA (and, as far as I can see, the Supreme Court) on this one.

I didn't say the ACLU hates America.

No, you just said that catching terrorists was "against their agenda." Forgive me for misrepresenting your fair-minded representation of their position.

Lets take the domestic spying for instance. ACLU member has said that the only reason they are attempting to sue the telecoms is to collect information about teh Evil Bush Administration.

Is this an, "I heard it from an ACLU member in a bar" sort of thing?

Cases like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which said he was in the right...

What?? Nobody won that one on all issues, but the government's position was ruled against on some significant points, the most important being that they don't have (as they asserted) the power to hold a US citizen indefinitely without some sort of judicial review. Probably most telling is the fact that Scalia's dissent from that ruling wasn't to claim that they did have that power, but to go further and say that it's not allowed absent an official suspension of habeas corpus. That's hardly a case of the government being vindicated. In fact, if the case hadn't been brought, the government would probably still be asserting the power to disappear its own citizens. Although the ACLU only filed an amicus curiae brief in that one, cases like it justify the ACLU's existence even if all it does normally is cause trouble.

...then there is United States v. Butenko in 1974 that backed previous court rulings that said judicial review wasn't needed for tap in which the primary purpose was to gather foreign inteligence.

That's absolutely true, but the court was unclear on how that data could be used or a clear distinction between foreign intelligence and law enforcement. As is true with your other citations, the question at

Re:A letter worth signing.

[sumdumass]

No, that would be stupid. What would be smart, though, would be using their web site to get a list of the cases they've been involved in and reading the specific arguments they've made.

You mean getting their version of events. Of course they are goign to be righteous and valiant.

There are a lot of cases, so I don't know which one you're referring to or the specific legal arguments that were being made. The one I was referring to was the fatally-flawed (and still active, as far as I know) Iowa law. The distance was 2000 feet, it included places other than schools, made no distinction between actual dangerous child molesters and teenagers who showed poor judgment about who to have sex with, and never expired. Draw a ~1-mile diameter circle around every school, day care center, and in-home child care facility and tell the 40-year-old who had sex with a 15-year-old when he was 19 that he and his family can't live anywhere within those circles and you'll see the problem. These laws are typically shot down (or challenged) because of the bad things they do, not because of the good things they're meant to do.

The one I'm talking about is a 1000ft distance and just included daycare and preschool facilities but not the in home types. Second, there isn't going to be a 40 year old who had sex with a minor when he was 19 on the registered offender list unless he was sentenced to 5 or 10 years when the registry laws started coming into play. The order to register has to be part of the sentencing or probation requirments (at least in my part of the country). Your not going to find a 19 year old dating a 15 year old that is 40 now who had consensual sex. Well, generally your not. In my area, anyone who engages in sex with a person under 13 is guilty of first degree rape, if they are under 18 and the child is between 13-15 it is coruption of a minor and if they are over 18 but within 4 years of the child older then 13, all charges are reduced to misdemeanor instead of felony. if they are older then 10 years above the other actor aged between 13-15 (16 is the age of consent) it is a felony carrying 1-5 years. The sexual offender registry laws didn't come around until 1994 with the Jacob Wetterling Registration Act which means that a person charged with a felony at age 19, assuming they were convicted and sentenced to the maximum of 5 years within one year would be about 33 right now. assuming they were still serving their sentence and convicted before the registry law, but ended up being part of it, they wouldn't be more then 38 right now. Megan's laws which brought about the state registries and notification laws was passed in 1996 which would/could deduct 2 years from the registry making it 36. You won't find any offenses on the lists and subject to the restrictions in locations from before 1989 unless they were a repeat offender because of this time framing and limitations.

Again, if you want to debate the specifics, you'll have to be specific. I can't be sure that I know anything about the specific case that you're not citing. I'm simply stating the general arguments that have been made. The reality is that the ACLU comes down on the same side as the ALA (and, as far as I can see, the Supreme Court) on this one.

What is there to be specific about. There was a group of people wanting porn filters installed on the library computers that children have access to and the ACLU fought it. I mean they were asking the libraries to put filters to filter search results for cars onto the computers, they were specifically pushing for porn filters. The ACLU's stated position was that it could block access to information like breast cancer so no porn filters at all should be allowed. I find it surprising that you seem to champion their cause but don't know about the controversial stands they have been taking. I seem like you only know what they are telling you.

No, you just said that cat

Stupid question...

[nebaz]

Does Congress even have the power to grant immunity? They think they have the power to do anything they want, but is providing blanket immunity even constitutional?

Re:Stupid question...

[Raul654]

Congress has the (sole) power to determine what is and is not illegal. Inherent in this is the ability to grant immunity. And as I have already noted here, the prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not preclude retroactive grants of immunity.

Re:Stupid question...

[nurb432]

Congress has the power to make laws that might be valid or might not..

The supreme court has the final power to decide what is illegal and not illegal. Personally id say the power to determine is really in the hands of the court.

Re:Stupid question...

[postbigbang]

While the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law, you first have to have the nexus to be an injured party. As long as the lists are secret, you will never know, and therefore cannot have nexus until the FIA brings it to light, if not redacted, 25 years from now. By then, everyone will hopefully have forgotten (is the hope, I'm sure).

So, litigation is moot under the proposed laws. That's why it's important to fight the immunity and hit the congressional urge (and heavily lobbied) to offer the telcos immunity. My view is that it'll be weaseled in somehow, because we have no guts, and no glory in the Congress. I wish it were otherwise. Vote in November.

Re:Stupid question...

[speroni]

Congress ONLY has the power to exercise the rights given to them as outlined in the Constitution.

No where in the Constitution does it give congress the right to excuse corporations who violate the rights of civilians.

I might quote Benjamin Franklin in saying (roughly) "Those who are willing to trade freedom for the illusion of security deserve neither freedom nor security."

Re:Stupid question...

[DrLang21]

It does however give them the right to pass laws that determine who is responsible for a crime. In this case, passing a law granting telecomms immunity when the executive branch of the federal government asks them to commit a crime, simply passes all of the blame to the executive branch. This of course means that no one will be held responsible because the executive branch is entrusted to enforcement of law. IANAL: this is not legal advise. This is mental masturbation.

Re:Stupid question...

[Atlantis-Rising]

Where in the constitution, however, are corporations responsible for the rights of citizens? They are not.

As a result, Congress can immunize them from doing so because it is Congress that created the laws to punish them in the first place; if those laws to punish them were unconstitutional, so be it, but it renders unnecessary the need to immunize them.

Re:Stupid question...

[speroni]

In danger of giving the playground response of Nut-uh... It does not. The "Who is responsible for a crime" falls upon the Judicial branch.

If the Legislative branch were to try to pass such a law it would be unconstitutional. The effort to pass THIS law is unconstitutional.

I agree, this does not excuse the executive branch from trying.

I also agree, this is nothing more than a mental exercise since our govn't has spun way out of control.

Re:Stupid question...

[speroni]

No one and nothing, has the right to violate even one of my rights. Do you want to give your rights to Microsoft and Coca-Cola?

Re:Stupid question...

[LowlyWorm]

If you read the US Constitution carefully, there is a great deal of lassitude in this area. There are even provisions for suspending the Constitution in times of war or national emergency. This is exactly the tact the Bush administration has taken to justify wire tapping for the ubiquitous war on terrorism.

Re:Stupid question...

[jamstar7]

Actually, the way it works in practice is, it's legal until SCOTUS rules on it. Problem is, SCOTUS can't/won't rule on the legality/Constitutionality of a law until it's brought before them after the trial, the appeal, etc. And even then, they can refuse to hear it.

Re:Stupid question...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a big difference between "blanket" immunity and retroactive immunity.

"... efforts to give immunity to law-breaking phone companies that provided mountains of customer data to the government without warrants."

Even the ACLU can't get it right. That's retroactive immunity, not immunity in general. Whatever happened to due process? Whether they were law-breaking in doing so or in fact handing over "mountains of customer data", is all a foregone conclusion to the cocky lawyers over at the ACLU.

Re:Stupid question...

[Atlantis-Rising]

That wasn't my argument.

I said that the constitution does not make corporations responsible for the rights of citizens, so it is via the standard lawmaking power ('general welfare', anyone?) that Congress creates the rules to prosecute them for offenses against the rights of citizens.

It is via that same process that Congress can immunize them from prosecution.

1984....

[etinin]

Your government will begin with this, soon they'll be deploying cameras in people's houses. It is totally absurd for any government agency to have access to private data without a court order. If things are going to work like that, then a corrupt agent will be able to browse through a lot of confidential information without having to pass through any bureaucracy...

Re:1984....

[smittyoneeach]

Well, if we delegated the power encompassed by the IRS, the SSA, and the various other control mechanisms in place from the Fed to the states, we could undo a lot of arguably wrong-headed old precedent.
Creating a "new" tradition of un-intrusive Federal government would really put the "P" in Progress for many of us.

Re:1984....

[OMNIpotusCOM]

Why does everyone invoke 1984 for things like this, but completely overlook the blatant harm and unregulated power credit of bureaus having every piece of information about you?

Re:1984....

[KDR_11k]

Because some people don't mind if corporations do wrong, they only care about the govt.

What is it with the Rockefellers?

[Doug52392]

OMG can that family just back off? It's bad enough that name appears in dozens of conspiracies throughout the 20th century, but now they want to destroy the Internet? Wow, those guys need to get their political power taken away fast........

Re:What is it with the Rockefellers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, you'd think a Rockefeller wouldn't have to take bribes from the telcos.

Maybe someone needs to re-print the list of people that J.Edgar Hoover kept tabs on. It might make some of these Congresscritters notice how a supposedly good idea can be used to destroy their privacy and free speech rights along with the rest of us.

For how long?

[grasshoppa]

Seriously, how long are we going to be able to keep up the fight? It's obvious the current administration and the telcos will just keep making one run after another until one gets through; and don't bother suggesting that we will actually hold them accountable at some point. That's laughable.

So the question becomes, how long until we burn out?

Re:For how long?

[east coast]

The current administration? Given the current balance of power this isn't as much a move by the current administration but by both parties working in unison. Sure, some will use it as a token "it's not me" vote but in the long run this isn't just Bush & Co or even the Republicans...

Wake up from your dreaded party politics dream and you'll see the real nightmare.

Re:For how long?

[AuMatar]

Until the next administration. If its a democrat, you have a chance.

If its McCain, I recommend investing in lube. We'll need a lot of it.

Re:For how long?

[Delwin]

That depends on how many voices join the chorus. If we can gather more support than just /. and a few other sites and either take this mainstream or at the very minimum keep gathering steam then we can hold out until the next administration. No matter what things will be changing come 2009. We have no idea how they're going to change, but change they will.

Re:For how long?

[The Master Control P]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re:For how long?

[whoever57]

Until the next administration.

Last time I looked, Congress passed laws, not the President. Also, last time I looked, the House was controlled by the Democratic party which was also the majority part in the Senate. So how is a new administration going to make any difference?

Re:For how long?

[24-bit Voxel]

It really does seem to be both parties working together.

In the past for social change to become in the public awareness it has taken a bad economy or an intolerable immediate social situation. Given the track record of the Republicans over the past 30 years the best path to force social change would be to keep electing them so that they destroy the economy and the standing of the US in the rest of the world to such a level that only public outcry and massive social change can bring us back. Naturally, no one wants this so we are stuck between a rock (iraq) and a hard place.

/sarcasm on

So do us all a favor and vote for the worst candidate from here on out. It's the only way. It will bring out social change faster than the small bandaid method we are currently employing. This is the best way to 'burn out'.

/sarcasm off

Note: this message has been edited for the sarcasm impaired.

Re:For how long?

[Delwin]

Veto.

Re:For how long?

[postbigbang]

The problem has been that the President must sign them, and if vetoed, then a 2/3rds majority must overrule his veto. That doesn't happen much.

A Democratic president that has a Demo congress has a better chance of breaking logjams, for constitutional and party-whip control reasons.

Re:For how long?

[hondo77]

So do us all a favor and vote for the worst candidate from here on out. It's the only way.

He's been in the White House for seven years. I don't think we're getting the results you were hoping for.

Re:For how long?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Most of the outrages perpetrated by the current Democratic Congress have been the work of just enough of its "majority" members, of which Rockefeller is a prime example, knuckling under to the White House and going along with pretty much all the Republicans to pass every evil bill the Bush administration demands. Most Democratic representatives and senators are voting against these bills, but given how fine the balance of power is, all it takes is a few Democrats to go along with the Republican party line. Presumably, under an Obama or Clinton administration, the Rockefellers and Feinsteins and Liebermans will continue to be gutless for the White House, only this time they'll be gutless stooges for the (relatively speaking) good guys.

Re:For how long?

[whoever57]

The problem has been that the President must sign them, and if vetoed, then a 2/3rds majority must overrule his veto. That doesn't happen much.

What makes you so sure that Obama or Clinton would override a bill passed by their own party on this issue?

Re:For how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just remember part of the American Myth is that sometimes things fall to a state where a blood sacrifice and self sacrifice are needed to begin setting things right.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

According to the mythos it's moral and ethical to slay in cold blood those who've wronged you and their agents when all regrdress and avenues are exhausted. Just don't expect to survive yourself. It's a condition which lends itself to spectacular self-correction, but it does mean employment at a large telco does care very severe and niegh impossible to quantify risks.

My particular reflection of the mythos takes a somewhat different turn; though I cannot deny the influence of my culture on my development. There is a moral imperative to do good where you can do good, and to work against injustice that's in your path. I can't be a moral person and be a bystander. To be a bystander is to invite, and indeed perhapse deserve, misfortune. (Of which I have my share.) There is a demand from the larger community upon me to love another's freedom and security and well-being as I love my own. A demand to refrain from taking which I do not need, that which I cannot use. One need not seek out wrongs in a world teeming with an endless supply to right, but one can't be a silent whitness.

It is its own small sacrifice. Some lies I cannot abide, some advantages I cannot press, some things I cannot let pass without at least comment. I might be a richer person in a number of ways were I not so burdened what many, if not most, would consider a serious character flaw. But I chose the reward: Peace of mind. The confidence of my own integrity.

Re:For how long?

[postbigbang]

Of Obama, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/07/intel-advisor-breaks-with_n_90427.html

Of Clinton, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html which shows she skipped an earlier vote on the subject. However, she differs from Obama's lobbying efforts, where most of the bribery, oops, influence begins.

Re:For how long?

[DavidTC]

No, the 'next administration' isn't really that important. What is important is the next Congress.

And last election, anyone with a D next to their name got in. This election, those Ds that aren't actually Ds have had primary challenges they're going to lose, and get replaced with real D.

The Republicans, right now, are pretending that it takes 60 votes to get anything they don't like through the Senate. Meanwhile, somehow, three or four Democrats caving to the Republicans give them 52 votes, which is somehow enough to pass things.

This is because the Senate Majority Leader is a complete fucking moron who lets the Republicans 'pretend' to filibuster every bill. Anyone but Reid in 2008, please.

But, anyway, if the same thing happens in 2006 that happened in 2006, and there's no reason to think it won't happen as strongly, all the fake Democrats in the House will be thrown out for real ones, and another 1/3rd of the Republicans in the Senate will be thrown out for Democrats.

...the next six months will be a desperate attempt for immunity for all sorts of crap, not just for the telecoms, and the two months after that will be near-total panic. The actual best thing we could do at this point is shut down Congress to keep them from bribing and forcing those bills through.

Re:For how long?

[capologist]

If McCain is President, the legislation or lack thereof will be irrelevant. He'll do what he damn well pleases, and use the "National Security depends on executive action being hidden from the prying eyes of the public" excuse to block discovery and effectively prevent litigation. Just like W.

Re:For how long?

[capologist]

Voting against our Commander in Chief? Traitors!

Re:For how long?

[Bartab]

And last election, anyone with a D next to their name got in. This election, those Ds that aren't actually Ds have had primary challenges they're going to lose, and get replaced with real D.

What a simpleminded, biased, and totally incorrect worldview.

Those "not a real D's", what some are calling Blue Dog Democrats won their office because they were, in your words, "not real D's" Somehow, you'll have to come to grips with the fact that in many places in the country, Democrats are a distant second choice.

And of course, your claim that "anyone with a D next to their name got in" is silly tending toward stupid. If it was true, the house would be 100% "D"

Re:For how long?

[Colonel Korn]

For reference, Obama, Clinton, and McCain are all deep in the pockets of the RIAA and a million other lobbying groups. Every major candidate is owned by various industries. On this specific issue, Obama is known to oppose telecom spying immunity while McCain is a fan of it.

Re:For how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because neither of them are complete fucktards?

Re:For how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

While I have no doubt there are some ties to lobbying groups, for the most part Obama seems to be the cleanest of them all. At this point I don't care much who gets in office so long as they're able to help America get back to being America.

Unfortunately I only see one serious candidate at this point that MAY do that.

Within the scope of how long can the American public hold out? This presidential election is crucial. People are very tired of attempting to defend what has been 7 years of onslaught. Their voices aren't heard over the din of the shortsighted masses.

Re:For how long?

[Dachannien]

The Democrats aren't "good guys" either. For every thing about them that is better than the Republicans, there's something else that's worse. And both of them are weighed down by party politics that prevent true visionary thinking from actually improving the government.

Re:For how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

It may have been hyperbole, but it was somewhat accurate. The fact that many republican senators didn't want the president campaigning for them is evidence of the backlash against the current adminstration (and the republicans have been unified behind this adminstration)

No, not everyone with a D got in. The republicans lost 6 seats out of the 15 R incumbents running, which is fairly significant, since incumbency is usually a golden ticket to being (re)elected.

Also as a technical note, only 33 or 34 seats are ever up in a given normal election in the senate, which was the GP was talking about. The house tends to be much less important.

Re:For how long?

[Toonol]

Until the next administration. If its a democrat, you have a chance.

That much foolish naiveté in an adult is unpardonable. If you're a child, then it's forgivable, as you may yet learn about the nature of politics, power, and corruption as you grow.

Re:For how long?

[Crypto Gnome]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And the US of A is doing its best to head into a recession.

Quite frankly I don't see how anyone over there is able to Afford Such A High Price.

Re:For how long?

[jamstar7]

The problem, of course, is, the lesser of two evils is STILL evil. That's just something you just can't paint over.

Re:For how long?

[wrook]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
There's more to it than that. First you have to be vigilant. Then you have to do something about it.

Re:For how long?

[DavidTC]

Those "not a real D's", what some are calling Blue Dog Democrats won their office because they were, in your words, "not real D's" Somehow, you'll have to come to grips with the fact that in many places in the country, Democrats are a distant second choice.

And I'm fairly sure I didn't imply those places didn't exist.

However, they aren't the places electing Blue Dogs. Those are the places that will continue electing Republicans regardless. We're nowhere near done flipping areas from R to D.

And of course, your claim that "anyone with a D next to their name got in" is silly tending toward stupid. If it was true, the house would be 100% "D"

Someday, someone will explain 'hyperbole' to you. Or, in fact, that you were looking at that backwards. I meant, in many races, that anyone with a D next to their name would have defeated the R incumbent. I didn't mean that all Democrats won, I meant that the sole qualification for being elected was often 'Not Republican'. And they were, and some of them clearly weren't very good choices. (Although some of them would have made quite good Republicans back when that party used to be sane.)

Re:For how long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the last time they tried to give the telcos immunity they were defeated in the house. The Republicans were nearly unanimous in their support for immunity. If not for the Democrats, I wonder how you think the bill would have been defeated.

I realize that it's fashionable to say "oh boo hoo, both parties are the same" but recent evidence suggests otherwise. The ONLY way we're going to beat this is to get the scum who support immunity out of office.

Re:For how long?

[Anomalyst]

Signing statements and presidential orders to the Department of Injustice.

What did we do on February?

[iminplaya]

Was I there? How did I get home?

What does it matter?

[Aaron England]

This is not a troll, but can anyone tell me what does it matter? Have the telecos been successfully sued in court for their indiscretions? Are we pursuing them in court? If the answer is no to both counts, then what does it matter if we grant them immunity.

Re:What does it matter?

[postbigbang]

Money fuels litigation. No class to litigate means no legal expenses paid. Quid pro quo.

If there is immunity, no one can start a suit. But we still have many dragging answers from the administration about the nature of what happened, and to the extent it happened, and so the class of people injured (who then have nexus to sue) really isn't known yet. When it is, provided you really can sue, someone will. And I'll be happy to become a party to the plaintiffs that do it. Such behavior cannot be rewarded, and the damage to privacy and freedom in the name of security is done.

Re:What does it matter?

[Bman21212]

It does matter. People (like the ACLU) do want to pursue them in court, and make an example out of them.

Personally, I am for immunity for the telecoms. What they did was wrong, but the Bush administration said it was legal. Companies should be able to take the government at their word for what is legal or not. Going after the justice department would be a much better solution, though a harder one.

The problem is that if we set a precedent that the government cannot be trusted by big corporations, than we will run in to problems later. Going the Google way and making a big stink when they overstep their bounds is good, as it forces them to be legal. But the telecoms should not be punished for doing the government's bidding. The government should be punished for not following its own laws.

Re:What does it matter?

[dreamchaser]

Agreed. They are going after the wrong people. I will admit that I tend towards being a conservative libertarian, but I'm leaning towards Impeachment just the same even though I've supported Bush in the past on a few issues (tax cuts mainly).

Re:What does it matter?

[jschimpf]

Ahem, the Telco's have hordes of lawyers to advise them if something is legal or not. What they did was NOT legal under the law when they did it. Remember this is a country of laws not of men, you cannot be told to do illegal things and then NOT be held responsible. The US government cannot order you to do illegal things. (Remember we hung German officials after WW II for "Only following orders") In any case these suites against the telcos are not for $ they are to discover the truth about what was done to us the citizens of this country.

Re:What does it matter?

[Frequency Domain]

Personally, I am for immunity for the telecoms. What they did was wrong, but the Bush administration said it was legal. Companies should be able to take the government at their word for what is legal or not. Going after the justice department would be a much better solution, though a harder one. The problem is that if we set a precedent that the government cannot be trusted by big corporations, than we will run in to problems later. ... I think you have it completely backwards. The USA is supposed to be run by laws, not by personalities. It seems to me the law was unequivocal in this case, but the telecoms went ahead and violated it on the say-so of the executive branch (which has no say-so on interpreting law, by the way). The telecom's lawyers should have told them that they were opening a big can of liability, and the fact that they're pushing so hard for retroactive immunity indicates that they know it, and are getting very concerned at the prospect of a change of administration. That's a huge tell - if they thought the law was on their side, they wouldn't worry about the next administration taking power.

If they are granted the immunity, it basically gives future administrations a precedent for saying they're above the law. Who cares what those pesky laws say, we'll immunize you if you do our bidding.

Re:What does it matter?

[DavidTC]

They're going after the telecoms via the civil courts because that's the only place that normal human beings can bring charges.

The Justice Department and the FBI should actually be investigating, but, guess what? They're not.

Remember, 'impeachment is off the table', thank you stupid fucking Democrats. Impeachment is the fucking table when the executive branch is breaking the law.

And even if it's not, it certainly should be the very first thing that showed up the second the executive branch decided not to cooperate with any investigation. Harriet Miers is almost 10 months late for her testimony because the executive branch has lied and claimed she has 'executive privilege'.

So, Congress is a bunch of cowardly asshats, and it's probably because a few of the Democrats knew what was going on also, and the executive branch won't investigate themselves. If it could get into court, the court has a chance of clearing it up, but private citizens can't file charges...but they can sue. See why the government wants telecom immunity? That is the one possible chance at this point.

In the end, I'm not that keen to see telecoms end up owing several hundred trillion dollars worth of damages to the people of the US, although I think it would be damned funny. But that's not the point of the suit. If the telecoms need debt forgiveness after all this comes out, I won't stand in the way, but right now this case is the only way to find out what's actually happening.

Incidentally, I wish libertarians would stop acting like 'cutting taxes' is some sort of 'policy'. Taxes should roughly match government expenses, slightly exceeding them in boom times and slightly below them in recessions. There's actually no possible debate about that, except maybe how much 'slightly' is. Plenty of debate over who and what to tax, but no debate on the actual amount of needed income, and thus no debate on the amount of income we actually need to collect in total.

You guys, however, like to pretend it's a 'policy decision', that any reduction is good and any expansion is bad, thus resulting in a rather horrible deficit at this point. A policy decision is less government in general, or in any specific. But any government program that exists must be funded to the amount that it is spending. It's not a damn choice, where we can just magically not collect money to pay for things.

Re:What does it matter?

[capologist]

We don't need tax cuts with an $8 trillion debt.

Spending cuts, sure. (Might have been nice to stay out of this trillion-dollar war in Iraq.) But at any given level of spending, cutting today's taxes just means raising tomorrow's taxes.

It also means putting upward pressure on interest rates, which makes mortgages more expensive, makes it more expensive for businesses to raise capital, etc.

Re:What does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T is being sued for their actions in the NSA spying case, so yes they are being sued,

Re:What does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The law already grants immunity if the telecoms had a good faith belief they were acting in accordance with the law. The telecoms want congress to grant them immunity even if they knew they were breaking the law.

Re:What does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

there are over 20 lawsuits going on right now in multiple jurisdictions.

NO retroactive immunity!

Re:What does it matter?

[Dog-Cow]

As I posted before, I am all for immunity for the Telcos. BUT, only if Bush and his Administration are executed for their crimes.

Re:What does it matter?

[TheoMurpse]

the executive branch (which has no say-so on interpreting law, by the way)

Well, not except for the whole "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" part of the Presidential Oath.

The President has a duty to interpret the law. The SCOTUS may provide the ultimate interpretation of the law, but in absence of court holdings on an issue, it is incumbent upon all officers of the US government to interpret the laws (the Executive in how to enforce; the Legislature in how to understand for future legislation; and the Judiciary for obvious reasons).

I'm against telecom immunity, however, as listening to the legal advice of Bush (who, after all, was rejected from the law school here at The University of Texas and had to go to business school as his fallback). I'm just pointing out that it's not true that the Executive doesn't get to interpret law.

Re:What does it matter?

[dreamchaser]

We need MASSIVE spending cuts. That much is true. However, keeping taxes at a reasonable rate is essential to keeping the economy going. Government spending does NOT help the economy; it hurts it for the most part due to the massive waste inherent in most bureaucracies.

Nobody can tell me that the founding fathers intended for the Government to be mother, father, and caretaker. Certainly we need some safety nets for the most disadvantaged among us, but the current level of spending on social programs is totally untenable and unsustainable.

Re:What does it matter?

[Frequency Domain]

the executive branch (which has no say-so on interpreting law, by the way)

Well, not except for the whole "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" part of the Presidential Oath. The President has a duty to interpret the law. The President has a duty to uphold the law. Uphold != interpret. As you pointed out, the presidential oath of office requires him to "preserve, protect, and defend...". It doesn't say "preserve, protect, defend, and interpret...". The constitution defines interpretation as the role of the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

Re:What does it matter?

[TheoMurpse]

The President has a duty to uphold the law. Uphold != interpret. As you pointed out, the presidential oath of office requires him to "preserve, protect, and defend...". It doesn't say "preserve, protect, defend, and interpret...". The constitution defines interpretation as the role of the judicial branch, not the executive branch.

And if the courts have not ruled on an issue yet, if the President cannot interpret, how can he faithfully execute the laws of the US?

You do realize that practically every piece of legislation has ambiguities, right?

Also, if the courts have not ruled on an issue yet, but he believes a piece of legislation is unconstitutional, then he must ignore the legislation as per his oath to preserve, protect, and defend. That requires some level of interpretive leeway.

The constitution defines interpretation

I find this interesting, as the word "interpret" appears nowhere in the Constitution. Furthermore, the only thing the Constitution says about judicial powers is this: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That's it. Where in there is interpretive ability?

What you're thinking of is judicial review, a doctrine that Justice John Marshall practically made up in Marbury v. Madison in the very early 19th century.

Now, I agree with the doctrine of judicial review (but there is a significant minority of Constitutional scholars who don't agree with it, as it's an extra-Constitutional doctrine); however, to state that the Constitution assigns the interpretive power solely to the Judiciary shows an unfamiliarity with the plain text of the Constitution.

Additionally, all the Constitution says about what the President has power to do is: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That's it. There are no enumerated powers for the Executive and Judicial branches, only for the Legislative branch.

What's wrong with investigations?

[copponex]

If the telecoms don't have anything to hide, why would they be afraid of a few questions?

Uh-oh, Big Brother. It looks like that logic has a nasty way of working both ways. The only way to prevent this from happening in the future is to keep immunity out, sue every single telecom into bankruptcy, and throw every member of the Administration who was involved into prison.

Pff... hahahahah. Alright, it was worth a good laugh. Now please, go back to watching your televisions. The Factor is coming right up! Top news story? Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not an "honest man," and makes money selling lies...

Re:What's wrong with investigations?

[Miseph]

"Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not an "honest man," and makes money selling lies..."

Yeah, how dare he say that people hate us in the Middle East because we took a dangerous and selfish angle in our diplomatic relations to the region's influential states! We're perfect and there can be no repercussions for our actions! He's just racist against real Americans...

That's why I donate to the ACLU

[FatSean]

If they're going to come for me, they're going to come for me.

Why be a pussy?

Re:That's why I donate to the ACLU

[Strange Ranger]

If they're going to come for me, they're going to come for me.

Why be a pussy?
As I read that it sounds like you are asking yourself, as you should be.

Re:That's why I donate to the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

If they come for someone else first, you have advance warning to get out.

Re:That's why I donate to the ACLU

[Anonymous Coward]

when (if?) they release you from guantanamo bay without ever levying a charge against you, let us know how it feels to be a tough guy...

Is there a difference

[Opportunist]

As an European, I might not see the subtle differences between Democrats and Republicans, but to my eyes, they look so similar I can't really see the choice.

Re:Is there a difference

[east coast]

There isn't but most Americans are too lunkheaded to see beyond the politics of their parents and their parents parents, so on and so forth.

I love how smug Democrats and Republicans are when we've seen the damage that both parties do.

Re:Is there a difference

[NotBornYesterday]

Republicans used to be the party in favor of lower taxes & smaller government & farmers. Foreign policy tended to be hawkish. They'd let you have guns and God, but not porn or gay sex. Right wing.

Democrats used to be the party in favor of civil rights & bigger social programs & friendly with labor. Foreign policy tended to be dovish. You couldn't have guns or put up a Christmas tree on public land, but you could have porn and/or gay sex. Left wing.

Now they both tax the crap out of us, spend us into a world of deficit, screw the working/middle class and infringe on our rights while cutting social programs. Or maybe it has always been that way, and I'm only starting to notice. Hmm ...

Seriously though, although the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of center, since there are only 2 parties each party covers a lot of ideological ground and there is some overlap in the middle. With both parties being mindlessly poll-driven, I feel like most of them are simply parroting the feel-good position of the day as it comes to them from their handlers, making both sides sound remarkably similar overall. Mostly they just argue over who gets the blame or the credit, depending which way the poll numbers are going.

Re:Is there a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Shear nonsense. As pointed out above it is a minority of the majority party siding with the minority party under white house pressure. I'll agree there isn't much difference between the DLC types and Republicans but members of the progressive wing are very different from conservative Republicans.

Its the media that likes to focus on petty issues instead of real solid differences that gives the appearence of the two groups being the same.

Re:Is there a difference

[spikedvodka]

You mean like the old joke:

A guy is sitting in the front row of a "town meeting" in an overwhelming republican town, when the R presidential candidate comes to speak.

the candidate asks "So who here is a republican?" everybody else raises their hands, so he asks the gentleman in the front "So why aren't you a republican?"
"Well, my father was a democrat, his father was a democrat, as so was his father before him, so I'm a democrat."
"Well, what if your father, and his father has been idiots?"
"Then I guess I'd be a republican"

Re:Is there a difference

[Boronx]

Here's the difference: Only about half the Democrats (speaking of congress here) voted for this war based on lies that has murdered tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Almost every single Republican voted for it.

A sizable chunk of Democrats want to hold the Bush administration accountable for this crime, Almost no Republican does.

Almost all Democrats are against Telco (and by extension, Bush) immunity, but enough are willing to vote with just about every single Republican that it's always in danger of passing.

And so on.

The Democrats are cripplingly corrupt and evil, the Republicans are totally corrupt and evil.

Re:Is there a difference

[ZorbaTHut]

Oh yes, the difference is quite simple.

Democrats want to increase government spending and lower taxes, in that order. Republicans, on the other hand, want to lower taxes and increase government spending, in that order.

If that's not enough, there's other issues they differ on. Republicans are in favor of important useful rights like firearm ownership, and strongly against dangerous inhuman practices like abortion. Democrats, however, are in favor of important useful rights like abortion, and strongly against dangerous inhuman practices like firearm ownership.

On all other points they're pretty much the same though.

Re:Is there a difference

[n dot l]

Translation for a fellow non-American:

the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of the Republicans, but still right of center

Re:Is there a difference

[vague_ascetic]

You are closer to the mark, but the figures should be clearly stated. Republicans have historically been slippery eels when it comes to properly assessing causality from their actions. Accepting Personal Responsibility is not actually a tenet of contemporary conservatives. It is instead a strategy that provides them with multiple opportunities to insult poor folk.

In The Senate, It was Roll Call 237 on October 11, 2002. The toal vote count was:
Yeas - 77 --- Nays - 23

The party affiliation breakdown was:

• Yeas - 48 R --29 D -- 0 I
• Nays - 0 R -- 22 D -- 1 I (Jeffords)

In the House it was Roll Call Vote 4455 on October 10, 2008. The total vote count was:
Yeas - 296 --- Nays - 133 --- NoVotes - 3

The party affiliation breakdown was:

• Yeas - 215 R -- 81 D -- 0 I
• Nays - 6 R -- 126 D -- 1 I
• NoVote - 2 R -- 1 D -- 0 I

• The Republicans voted affirmative 263/6
• The Democrats voted affirmative 110/126

This simplistic analysis does not show a very important consideration, and this is another instance of Republican weaseling from personal responsibility. It does not show clear statements made by Congressional members who stated that their vote was not al all out assent to war, but was instead a vote for giving the President power he could use as leverage on the Interational stage, to force Saddam into compliance, and in the event that all else had failed, war as a last resort. To assert that these persons diod no mean what they said is a very big leap out over the chasm of fatuity. Their error was having faith that a man elected as U.S. President, would possess the personal honor and integrity to not waste human blood waging an immoral foreign war, based upon falsehoods. They were very wrong, but that makes them dupes and rubes. Again, the Lamer of Two Evils.

GOP Bastards: the Natural Liberties you have stolen were in part mine. Give it back with public apologies for your crimes, and you'll no longer be counted as domestic enemy.

Re:Is there a difference

[famebait]

Seriously though, although the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of center,

You don't say?
'Center' is _defined_ as the middle ground between the biggest players.

There is no fixed 'neutral' center. Who the big players are and what their stances mean varies with time and from country to country, and so does the perception of what the 'center' means. The 'center' here in Norway is far out to the left of the US Dems. Even our extreme right wing struggles to be slightly to the right of the american 'center', on their most extreme issues. On others they would be seen ass communist by American far-right standards (but then, who wouldn't?)

In most countries in western Europe, even the average might-vote-democrat american is a right-wing nutjob if one really looks into their concrete political views.

Re:Is there a difference

[bentcd]

As an European, I might not see the subtle differences between Democrats and Republicans, but to my eyes, they look so similar I can't really see the choice. Republicans tend to increase the national debt while democrats tend to reduce it.

I think that's it really.

But then, I'm also European so what do I know :-)

Re:Is there a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

although the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of center, since there are only 2 parties each party covers a lot of ideological ground and there is some overlap in the middle. Sorry. No.
Democrats are right of center and Republicans are farther left. Broaden your viewpoint to other countries and you'll know what "left" actually means.

Re:Is there a difference

[NotBornYesterday]

Thanks for the perspective. Very well put. I wish I had thought to frame it that way.

Re:Is there a difference

[Nimey]

You left out one critical bit: Dems are generally left-of-center for the United States and the GOP right-of-center for the United States.

I'm told that Europeans think of Dems as being rather conservative. They're generally horrified by the Republicans.

Re:Is there a difference

[Opportunist]

That pretty much sums it up nicely. From a European point of view, the US have a liberal right wing party and a conservative right wing party.

Re:Is there a difference

[Opportunist]

So what you say is that the Dems don't readily but haphazedly vote for Republican issues while the Reps support it full force.

That's not a different political view. It is considered a given in Europe that every delegate of a party supports the issues put forwards by the party leader, while the opposing party (or parties) vote against it on principle. If anything, a European observer would say that the Reps have their delegates under control while the Dems don't.

Re:Is there a difference

[redxxx]

Translation for a fellow non-American living in first world nations:

the Republicans are generally right of center and Dems are generally left of the Republicans, but still right of center We're pretty progressive compared to the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa(excluding South Africa on social issues like Gay Rights).

Re:Is there a difference

[JadedEvan]

And the sad part about the situation is that despite everybody highlighting the fact that the two parties are just about the same thing, we've still got people rabidly voting along their party lines as if it really makes a difference. How much really changed since the elections in 2006? Things have been going wrong for a long time, not just since W got elected. I'm consistently astounded that people still support such ineffective leadership in both parties.

Re:Is there a difference

[FiloEleven]

[Members] of the progressive wing are very different from conservative Republicans. And just how are they different, exactly? I mean, they both have grandiose ideas about the next bits, pieces, and large chunks we should tack on to our already crufty federal government. Given a choice between the two, I mostly prefer the vision of the Democrats, but it's not all that much of a choice.

Both parties are also very much committed to maintaining our military presence in 130 countries, yet the only thing that's mentioned is their differences on the ridiculously costly war in Iraq, and even those are less different than they are made out to be.

Neither of the parties seem willing to admit that the war on terror is almost as much of a joke as the war on drugs, or that our own meddling in foreign countries' affairs provided and continues to provide the biggest catalyst for terrorist attacks against us.

I want to see a smaller federal government and a reduction of the number of federal programs, most of which are unconstitutional anyway. I want to see our military brought home and our hundreds of unnecessary foreign military bases closed. I want to see the government represent the people again instead of corporate interests. Neither of the candidates that the two parties will run this November are going to do that, so I guess your perception of difference all depends upon what you take for granted.

I'm frankly saddened that so many simply say, "Here is the issue. Choose side A or side B." rather than questioning why we should be concerned with the issues as they are framed in the first place.

Re:Is there a difference

[n dot l]

Yeah, good point. I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything - he said European, and I'm Canadian, and I just kinda left it at non-American.

Re:Is there a difference

[edalytical]

What if I'm for lower taxes & smaller government & farmers? What if I want guns, even semi and fully automatic ones? What if I'm in favor of civil rights & social programs & friendly towards labor? What if I could give a fuck about xmas trees anywhere? What if I like porn and could give a fuck if someone has gay sex? What then?

Re:Is there a difference

[Dog-Cow]

Any elected official who places the party ahead of the people he supposedly represents deserves death. The fact that it's tolerated, even expected, by the people is a travesty. As Ben Franklin might have said, the citizens of the United States truly deserve no freedom.

We certainly have no security.

Re:Is there a difference

[NotBornYesterday]

No problem. You could form the "Full-Auto Fire Farmers Union for Porn, Welfare, & Gay Sex" political party.

Judging by some of the other posts here, everyone is looking for an alternative to the same-old-same-old. You might get quite a following.

Re:Is there a difference

[edalytical]

LMAO. Seriosly.

Re:Is there a difference

[Boronx]

"but was instead a vote for giving the President power he could use as leverage on the Interational stage, to force Saddam into compliance, and in the event that all else had failed, war as a last resort."

This is how many congressmen explained their vote, but Saddam was not enough of a threat and the war resolution had too few safeguards to make this position reasonable in 2002.

Re:Is there a difference

[vague_ascetic]

No, what I was attempting to convey is that for many Congressional member who claim their vote was not an all out declaration of war, the only proper evidence for which this can be judged is their statements entered into the Congressional Records during consideration of the AUMF. Using that standard, many of the politicians seem to be telling the truth.

I have a much better sense of what was actually entered into the Congressional Records during the consideration of the AUMF for a very easy to prove reason, although it makes me a bit uncomfortable using it often, because it feels like I am spamming. The following links are to my site, which I hand-coded personally:

• Authorization of Force
• Full TOC - including all inner links

The archive's pages have extensive inner links to expose a fairly fine specificity. If you search on the TOC page for individual Congresspersons, if they spoke anything substantial on those days, you will find a direct link to their words. (typo qualification, I just found a mispelled Kerry I was unaware of for over four years now that has three R's instead of two)

Looking back at what I posted though, clearly exposes an egregious error, that I should not have made, and that is omitting that One Republican Senator voted against the AUMF, Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). The fact that I have aggressively posted into this thread, and made what should have been an obvious mistake to many, yet was not called on it is an indication of just how woefully uninformed Americans still remain about who voted for what, and what was their stated reason for doing so regarding the AUMF.

Kerry got seriously reamed about his statement undeservedly in 2004. Well he did kind of deserve it, because he is a verbose ponderous Yankee lurch, who preached 6550 words, but if you read it completely, and honestly, it's easy to comprehend what he meant when giving his assent to the AUMF, was exactly what he said it was during the election, even though it was falsely portrayed as a flip-flop. Sen Reid, although with a level of derogation, stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word about consensus building and not rushing to war without proper cause, just like his daddy had done in the 1st gulf war.

There are many statements like this throughout the archive. Was their yea votes a mistake? Hell yes, but not for the reasons those adamantly opposed to the war claim. Again, the inherent flaw in their yea votes, was that an assumption that GW Bush would faithfully and honorably put ulterior motives behind him, and before entering into a foreign war, would assure it had been properly justified, and that an international consensus had been built around the evidence that provided him with this assurance of propriety.

This is the flaw, and the majority of blame is proper to place directly upon the GW Bush Administration.

Re:Is there a difference

[Boronx]

A man who "stated clearly that he expected GW to keep his word" while he voted to give up his only chance to hold GW to his word is a liar.

I'm glad that Reid is at the top of the Senate instead of that cat killer, but it's not reasonable that someone could sincerely hold Reid's stated position and vote the way he did.

Some facts please?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for preventing tel-com companies from acquiring immunity, but where are the facts? The notion of 'back room deals' seems a little vague. I mean, don't we still retain a shred of due process in this country? How could congress be so outright sneaky? The article doesn't provide any concrete information and it smacks of political propaganda. While I'd genuinely hate to see the telcom companies violating customers' rights with congressional backing, I can't help feeling there's something not right here....

In British English...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...'make a pass at' means something like 'reveal your sexual desire for'. What does it mean in American English? Given the context here of governments and telecom immunity I can only assume it means something like "fuc* in the ass".

Re:In British English...

[wellingj]

That's a pretty good description of what they are trying to do Citizen's Rights.

Re:In British English...

[Faylone]

Either that, or in reference to a plane or such making a bombing pass

Re:In British English...

[icegreentea]

In context, your interpretation is basically correct. Generally, to take another pass is to come at it again. As in pass-by again.

Re:In British English...

[Anonymous Coward]

... or just "English" as those of us from, er, England, call it... :-)

Re:In British English...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

English as spoken in England is just a dialect spoken by a minority.

They're suing NOW

[Anonymous Coward]

> Have the telecos been successfully sued in court for their indiscretions?

They are being sued, but the case is still pending. This decision is intended to end the existing lawsuit. If they get immunity, it will be an even more uphill battle. It's already difficult.

This is really really important.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's at stake here is that an entire sector of corporation (allegedly) broke the law in secret, and once exposed, is now trying to make what they did suddenly legal.

What's at stake here is the public's right to discover who in our government (allegedly) requested that the law (allegedly) be broken.

What's at stake here is nothing less than the rule of law itself and whether the law is controlled by the People or by the corporations.

Think about the consequences if fucking telecommunications companies for God's sake get away with (allegedly) violating our rights to privacy guaranteed by the FISA laws...

Think about the consequences if the (alleged) pressure to break the law from our own government never is fully exposed...

Think of the consequences if justice is not served to those who deserve it...

If they get away with this, the grand experiment that is America has failed.

Allegedly.

Re:This is really really important.

[tarball]

England has been ahead of us all the way. We've watched, criticized, and then let our (US) government do the same, and more.

The 2 parties, in one name or another, that have ruled us for 150+ years need competition.

tom

Re:This is really really important.

[jknapka]

Think of the consequences if justice is not served to those who deserve it... I think the consequence of that is: Modern American Corporate Culture.

Re:This is really really important.

[Eternal Annoyance]

That's why you've got the second amendment, to be able to pick up arms and protect yourselves against your (now corrupt) government.

If this bill passes (and I assure you, it will, as it'll come back again and again until it passes), any resistance from the citizens can, and will, be broken swiftly (after all, they will start tracking vocal individuals/organizations). I think the time has come for the U.S. citizens to pick up arms against their own government, as it doesn't represent them anymore.

The U.S. is slowly turning into another China, and this bill is another vital step for that to happen.

Freedom requires eternal vigilance... Guess a lot of U.S. citizens took freedom for granted and weren't vigilant, now here's the price.

Final checkpoint, after this. You might want to consider what you're saying on the web or over the phone, as somebody just might decide to suspect you of terrorism.

thank you scuttlemonkey

[Presto Vivace]

for posting this. Anyone who wishes to contact their Senator can do so here.

Re:thank you scuttlemonkey

[danzona]

I agree, thank you scuttlemonkey.

TFS says that it is the House that should be contacted (rather than the Senate) and they can be found here

Senate Dem majority is a myth

[vague_ascetic]

49 D - 49 R - 2 I

Reid is the majority leader by virtue of Lieberman's two-timing hide. Care to guess which side of the isle he votes on FISA and telecom immunity?

You also need to consider that cloture votes (an agreement to end debate and go to a vote on a bill or specific debated issue in a bill, requires a super-majority of 60%. Back when the Democrats used this to block a handful of Bush's most activist of right-wing judge appointees, they were criticised as being undemocratic. Now that Republicans have have used the tactic to effectively shut down any attempts by Democrats to right wrongs from the last 7 years, the Democrats are called inept or in collusion.

A fine example of this tactic is : Roll Call Vote #340 on September 19, 2007. It was a cloture to vote on Senator Specter's Amendment #2022 to The Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 - the purpose of which was to restore habeas corpus for those detained by the United States. The voted count was 56-Yea -- 43 Nay -- 12 NoVote. The Party affiliation of the vote was:
Yea - 49 D - 6R - 1 I (Sanders)
Nay - 42 R - 0D - 1 I (Lieberman)

Habeas corpus is a Natural Right, which the Constitution states can only be suspended in times of domestic invasion or public insurrection. To assert that a sneak attack by 20 detemine F**ks, which to this Nation's great misfortune, coincided with an administration so arrogant, ignorant and derelict, it failed at its primary duty to defend America constitutes an "invasion", is to chase after a well dressed bunny down into a dark hole in the ground. This should not be a partisan issue, and REAL conservatives understand this clearly. Read Kenneth Starr's written opinion to The Senate.

My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

Re:Senate Dem majority is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! The irony of Kenneth Starr writing that letter. Mr. Starr abused the Independent Counsel position to such an extent that it was eliminated. One can be quite sure that if an Independent Counsel existed today it would be investigating the many, many acts of corruption in the Bush administration.

Re:Senate Dem majority is a myth

[whoever57]

My question to you is: did you actually look last time or did you just accept what you were told?

Actually, I did look ... what I found was a page on the senate.gov website, which I expect to be authoritative on this subject:
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

I did notice the 49 seats each, but also noted that there is also one Independent Democrat. A certain Joe Lieberman. Clearly, just like many Democrats and Republicans, he does not always vote with "his" party.

But how do you feel about the ACLU?

[AK Marc]

Queue up the comments that distill to "I would rather give up all my rights than support the ACLU because they don't actively support the 2nd Amendment."

Re:But how do you feel about the ACLU?

[Nimey]

That's okay. If this was a wingnut site, we'd be getting cracks about the "Anti-Christian Liberal Union".

Re:But how do you feel about the ACLU?

[Anonymous Coward]

Queue up the comments that distill to "I would rather give up all my rights than support the ACLU because they don't actively support the 2nd Amendment."

It's a dark and stormy night and there are three men in a leaking boat; one is a member of the ACLU, another is a member of the NRA, and the third is with a telco. The ACLU guy and the NRA guy both decide they should start bailing the water out instead of arguing. There is a flash of lightning and they notice in the light that the guy from the telco is drilling a hole in the boat. The ACLU guy jumps on the telco guy and knocks him overboard, the telco guy tries to climb back onboard with his hand drill still in hand, NRA member shoots the telco guy and the blood attracts sharks. Later when they are rescued both swear that the telco guy must have fell overboard in the storm then start arguing over the definition of "militia" again.

You don't have to agree with every decision someone makes, sometimes you just have to pick a side with someone who might otherwise be your enemy and sometimes, like now, everyone just needs to grab a pail and start bailing as well as throwing the ones drilling holes in the Constitution overboard.

Re:But how do you feel about the ACLU?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have issues with the ACLU (like their policy on affirmative action) but their lack of a stance on the 2nd Amendment isn't one of them. We have plenty of other groups that handle 2nd Amendment cases, and not nearly enough to protect freedom of speech, or separation of church and state.

use proper measurements on the scale

[vague_ascetic]

There are indeed valid, substantial questions regarding Jay Rockefeller's campaign contributors and the FISA Bill's telecom immunity clause. My questions about him go back farther to when he was minority committee leader, and was being pussy-whipped by Sen. Roberts (Can's-Ass) about Robert's promise to have the Intelligence Committee investigate the administration's use of pre-Iraq War intelligence, and even get around to issuing subpoenas, so Feith and Wolfowitz would get their asses hauled down to assert their 5th Amendment rights under oath while being televised nationwide. There are several Democratic Senators whose defense of civil liberties is very questionable.

However, your intimated assertion of a partisan parity is absurd, and a wild flight of fantasy from reality.

Let's investigate reality without the rosy-tint of you blurry lens:

Senate Roll Call Vote #20 on February 12, 2008, The FISA Amendments Act

• Vote Total: 68 Yeas - 29 Nays - 3 NoVotes
• Yeas by Party: 48 R - 20 D - 1 I (Lieberman)
• Nays by Party: 0 R - 29 D - 1 I (Sanders)
• NoVotes by Party: 1 R - 2 D - 0 I

Clearly, The Democrats are The Lamer of Two Evils.

Re:use proper measurements on the scale

[east coast]

Your blurry lens can only see two parties. No wonder it's not going to change.

Re:use proper measurements on the scale

[vague_ascetic]

Excellent proof that you simply refuse to pay attention, and again just struck out without proper knowledge to justify the attack.. I have not been a member of either the Dem or Rep parties in over 20 years now, and have either been an LP member or simply non-aligned. You accuse me of only seeing two parties, because I listed the count by party of the Senate Roll Call Vote for The FISA Amendments act of 2008, and faithfully listed the two Senators who are independents? Would you have been happier if I had just made up party affiliation, or would you have been satisfied if my response to you had been just a ditto-head's assent?

The fact is that over the last 7+ years, the Republican congressional members have with just a few exceptions, been solidly anti-liberty in their votes, and in some instances, overtly obscene with their votes. My favorite example was the vote in the Senate for McCain's anti-torture amendment to the 2006 FY DOD budget on Oct. 5, 2005. It passed 90-9. How do you feel about a U.S. Senator who would vote against an anti-torture proposal?

All nine of these shameful Senators were Republican, and all nine are still Senate members, some with very important committee positions. They are:

1. Sen. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
2. Sen. Christopher S. Bond (Mo.)
3. Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)
4. Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
5. Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.)
6. Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.)
7. Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.)
8. Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
9. Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska)

I have no love of the Democratic Party, and feel that they squandered a great opportunity by not forcibly attacking the Republican Congressional members about their continued support for the theft of Natural Liberties. It is the same old game. Democrats are limp-wristed hand-wringers, filled with self-doubt. Republicans believe that it's A-OK to use as an interrogatory methodology, forceful sodomy with a blunt instrument. Democrats like to tax and spend, but Republicans cut taxes as they drastically increase spending. These things are not equivalent.

The Democrats Are The Lamer of Two Evils.

Re:use proper measurements on the scale

[east coast]

And if you go back and look at your numbers you'll see that enough Dems voted on the side of "Yeas" to pass this legislation. I already made a statement about the numbers of any party that will take a token vote to look as if their party is offset versus another. Stop skirting that issue.

And you're acting like votes are done independently. These votes could be tallied by those on the inside before the votes ever happen. This way they get to put up a sound-bite that they didn't vote for this and that but ignore the fact that it's all prearranged.

You may be able to talk up all these facts and figures but the bottom line is that you're missing the common sense side of it all. I hate to accuse people but you're really coming off like a Democratic party shill.

And BTW, I've NEVER been a member of either party nor have I voted for members of either party in the case of a third party candidate.

Re:use proper measurements on the scale

[TheTrucker]

I will never understand why people even care about the folks in the Senate but to discover who should be thrown in the street. Agonizing or hand wringing over the Senate votes is silly in this case. They CANNOT pass any immunity that the House will not allow. That should be the end of the discussion about the Senate. The House of Representatives is where the people have their voice. And it is in the House of Representatives that the pressure of big business interests should never prevail. That is where this is stopped and it is appropriate that such travesties as telco immunity are stopped in the House. The Senate is sterile. It is the most worthless institution ever created. I would repael the 17th amendment in a heart beat if I could. At least proir to that the people had a chance at the state level. http://greatervoice.org/extend

my spin

[vague_ascetic]

I am one who has for many years believed that the two party system was the ultimate root cause for the Nation's ills, and have also loudly asserted that if your vote was based on a "lesser of two evils" decision, without question, you have voted for evil.

The Bush Administration, and concomitant GOP Congressional dereliction, has taught me a bitter lesson though. I must now choke back the bile that rises in my throat, whenever I long nostalgically for the time in America's past, when a President's lies were only about acts of consensual sex, a cum-stained blue dress, and tobacco products with odd exotic aromatics; instead of a President's lies about Natural Liberties, Immoral War, and the Blood-stained Iraqi Sands.

This is the cause for a correction in my analysis. While it is wrong to vote for a lesser of two evils; a very good argument can be made to support a vote for the lamer of two evils. The GOP has not yet begun to experience the pain that is necessary to purge the excessive resident evil within. There need be a return to a state of polar equilibrium in quantities of evil, or there need be the end to the Republican Party, as a clear and present danger to the people's liberty. There is no third way.

The oath was: against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, or to condense it down to a Bushified black and white: are you with the Friends of Liberty or Against Us. Choose wisely...

Re:my spin

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If we have many parties to choose from, we get an altogether different breed of representation. The chances are, you'll find someone who is not evil, and who is committed to doing some good for the electorate. The problem is that evil (at the very least, on this scope) is relative, and what you consider good, someone else will consider evil. You could vote for your favourite, and he may even win, but you leave vast tracts of the population feeling very disgruntled and under-represented. Still, a certain group is happy, and change comes naturally.

With two party politics, both parties constantly play off each other, but only over relatively cosmetic issues. The core issues are mostly the same, and are designed to make everyone only slightly disgruntled. So, next to no-one is really pleased with the resulting government, but no-one is devastatingly unhappy either (hence, the lesser of two evils). The other problem is that change is very slow, because it requires a lot of public focus.

They're different systems, both with their advantages and disadvantages.

Re:my spin

[vague_ascetic]

All Politicians are by this simple definition, evil. They are humans who actively seek possession of power beyond what is a Natural Right for them to possess. A motivation of what they believe to be an altruistic higher good, should not be viewed as a mitigating factor. Instead it should be an sentence enhancement.

Do not be deceived; a state is essential for the protection of liberty, but it is also a hideous monster which should never be released from its muzzle and chain, or it will turn and devour its masters. Never trust a politician farther than you can swing a rope from the Oak Tree that grows in front of city hall.

"Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth, and let me remind you they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyranny."

Barry Goldwater - Acceptance Speech for The Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention, 1964

Sadly it seems that in our modern world, the only good Republicans, are the dead ones.

Re:my spin

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

All Politicians are by this simple definition, evil. They are humans who actively seek possession of power beyond what is a Natural Right for them to possess.

Not necessarily. They are people who use power to whatever ends. Power is useless without some kind of purpose (e.g. personal gain, positive change, etc). They may not be seeking power, but seeking some undetermined goal, even if that goal, if successfully reached, leaves them powerless (in theory).

Besides, your definition is far too broad and all-encompassing. Just about anyone who participates in any form of politics at any level has more power than what is "rightfully" theirs. If you vote, you're seeking power. If you talk to people about society with the intention to convey your viewpoint, you're seeking power (of influence). If you tell a murderous criminal to "put the gun down", you're seeking power. It's far too broad to actually give meaning to the word evil.

Re:my spin

[Intrinsic]

There need be a return to a state of polar equilibrium in quantities of evil, or there need be the end to the Republican Party, as a clear and present danger to the people's liberty. There is no third way.

I would just put forth one final notion to your argument. And that is the idea that things need to get worse, before they get better. The state of this country as it stands now, is one where the balance is forever being tipped in both directions. I would say that the sooner this country dips into darkness, the quicker and safer will will come out of it. Americans are extremely resilient to change and it takes an event of 9/11 proportions to get people off their ass to start demanding something better. Stand fast in your beliefs and dont let the nearsightedness of those around you persuade you otherwise. We are getting close to the point where things are starting to change, I say let another round of bullshit happen until it really starts to effect lay people and then a point will be reached where the American people have had enough.

Re:my spin

[rhakka]

You can justify nearly anything, but what you are ultimately doing is saying you are afraid of the consequences of voting your conscience, and that you would rather accept mediocrity than risk the possibility of what you PERCEIVE as greater evil.

In which case, the current system has won, it's just a question of what scares you more: the "liberal agenda", or the "conservative agenda", and you're right smack in the middle of the bullshit, wedge issue, framed debate you're being pushed into.

You equate the war, for example, with republicans. However, almost all the democrats in congress voted for the war without even reading the case for it. That's called "cognitive dissonance". you WANT to believe that they won't be as bad as the pubbies, but they are. The Dems are just pandering to one side now that things look tough, while the pubbies hold strong on "national defense". Hmm.

You're smack in the same, tired debate we always have. You selectively ignore the evils of the side you MOST identify with (not to say you fully identify with them, you just gloss over their evil) and focus on the evils of the side you least identify with.

But it just seems so reasonable, doesn't it?

For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun?

[Scrameustache]

the Supreme Court has the nexus to declare what might be ex post facto, or un-equal protection under the law That would be the same court staffed by people who think that torture is not punishment?

        STAHL: If someone's in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person -- if you listen to the expression "cruel and unusual punishment," doesn't that apply?

        SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think -- Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so.

        STAHL: Well I think if you're in custody, and you have a policeman who's taken you into custody-

        SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Oh, that's great, you have dishonest monsters deciding what is equal protection and what isn't! Fantastic!

more evidence of the left's lameness

[vague_ascetic]

Attitudes like yours are a significant cause for the flight of Americans from the Democratic party. How many times are you going to play your asinine circular firing squad game before you realise nobody wins?

Please offer valid citations for your defamatory statements about Reid, or admit that you are not in fact motivated by a will to defend liberty, but instead by the same lame-brained liberealities that got the party sodomised by the new right in the first place.

Christ Almighty! - Evil to the right of me, and imbeciles on my left!

Re:more evidence of the left's lameness

[DavidTC]

I'm not motivated to defend liberty? What? I'm complaining that Reid isn't motivated.

What gets the Democrats 'sodomized' by the right is the fact they refuse to ever actually take a stand.

When the Republicans are in power they rule with an iron fist, when the Democrats are in power the Republicans still manage to operate Congress. They can't pass bills as easily, but they still get them passed, and the Democrats somehow can't pass bills at all.

That is what is fucking wrong with Congress.

However, there's no 'flight of Americans from the Democratic party'. I don't know how you made that up. There is a flight to the Democratic party.

Re:more evidence of the left's lameness

[vague_ascetic]

Look, it is the squabbling being done over the issues that should presently be secondary that are going to cost the Democratic Party all of the capital they could have gained, if they had not devolved into the same old infighting over other issues.

I've been non-aligned or LP since Reagan's first term, but I voted for Kerry in 2004. Partly because I owed him a big one for his speech in Congress, 1971. I was looking at the end of my Army conscription then, had just finished a tour in Vietnam, and had opted to serve out the majority of the rest of my time, volunteering to go to a hospital in Okinawa, because I didn't want to go state-side and still have 6 months to go on my commitment to serve doing scut work at some base. When news and a partial transcript of Kerry's VVAW speech got to Okinawa, almost the whole hospital went into a party atmosphere for several days. I was a medic, and Vietnam was a true cluster-fuck. Far too many humans dying, ours, theirs and peasants, tied to their pitiful piece of dirt caught up in the middle of firefights. There was nothing that could have been done to further a better reality. so, yeah, I owed J effin Kerry one just for his speech, and when the Swift Boat asswipes started their attack, the only ones who quickly reacted were the non-partisans. The Democratic faithful took a collective intake of breath, and waited for Kerry to respond. In the 30+ years since I was in the military, I've watched the war-sickness take veterans down. It's not easy to know how bad they've got it, if you don't know them. Over the years I've tamped my reflexes down, when I know I'm dealing with a bro. He can say one hell of a lot of evil nasty things to me, and I'll still walk-away. When Kerry froze at the beginning of the swift boat attack, I saw this sort of a reflex action. Maybe I judged it wrong, but at the same time, where was the god-damned democratic party?

Sorry, at least it wasn't the unabridged version.

Another main reason I voted for Kerry was that it is exceedingly improper to reelect a president who led us into an immoral war, and Iraq was and is just that. It was also an action that turned the military away from the good fight, against the real enemy, at Tora Bora in December, 2001. Don't be deceived, there are without any doubt individuals who must be taken out, because they will cause the US, and the whole world tremendous human grief if they are not. When we invaded Afghanistan, that number was most likely under 10,000 human beings. Because of the hell brought in outrageous decisions by this administration, that number has been greatly increased. All the while this global obscenity was taking place, Congress was stripping away human liberties, which they were never empowered to take. We're Americans, and even the Devil is supposed to get a fair trial under due process of law, and a jury of 12 determining his guilt before he may be hanged by the state. Why would a human, who is an alleged terrorist, only upon the word of the president, be entitled to anything less?

Much of the Democratic traditional platform does not excite me, but had the party aggressively stood up and kept fighting endlessly for liberty and justice for all, I would have gladly given consent for their lesser insanities. Senator Reid is a conservative by Democratic standards, but he has been firm on the liberty side of things all along. On this he has not weaseled. Check out the listed home page on the header of this note if your wonder how I know this. I also live in Nevada. This is why I assumed that your criticism of Reid was based more on the other issues, and not on liberty.

There another not really the long version muse. This isn't about welfare, social security or the economy. It's a fight for the Dreamtime America, a battle for the Nation's soul. If the people do not force Congress to return the liberty they have illegitimately stolen, America will cease to be. and fucking a right terrorists possess habeas corpus rights. It's a universal right that is preeminent to the state power. If they are allowed to take from the detainees at Guantanamo, rest assured the will someday take from the citizenry too.

Re:more evidence of the left's lameness

[DavidTC]

Senator Reid is a conservative by Democratic standards, but he has been firm on the liberty side of things all along. On this he has not weaseled.

He has managed to stand up against telecom immunity, but that's about it.

There's a lot of talk about how Democrats are for restoring rights, but I think you'll admit they haven't fucking done so.

The President pro tempore of the Senate, thanks to how it's structured, holds enormous power to determine what bills get to the floor and what gets voted on and when and what committees things end up in.

However, if there is a bill that only 30 Republicans will vote for, a stupid bill that no one wants, but one that can be presented as a 'bad vote by my Democrat opponent' during a Republican's election in 2008, that will somehow make it to a vote. (And lose, of course, but that's not the point.) And yet if there's a bill that 58 people will vote for, and 42 Republicans against, those 42 will issue a 'pretend filibuster' avoiding cloture so the bill will never get voted on. Despite Reid having ways to spoil both those tricks.

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with him. He can stand there and vote for 'liberty' all he wants, but he was given the position so that he could actually get results, not run the Senate however the Republicans want. Good Democatic bills never go anywhere, bills that no one thinks are a good idea but are intended to politically help Republicans make it to the floor, and, more relevant to this article, stupid shit like this telecom immunity gets voted on again and again until it passes.

I mean, I thought the Republican abuse of the majority power in the Senate was bad when the Republicans were in power, but at least that made sense. Letting the Republicans run roughshod over the Senate now is just...mindblowing.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[postbigbang]

There are a few bad apples on SCOTUS. There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration. All is not lost, but it certainly isn't balanced well, we'll agree. Nonetheless, it's the law of the land. Civility demands respect, even if we don't agree. It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments are hopefully followed on the next appointments. Sometimes, they are.

There a difference

[vague_ascetic]

at least presently. Admittedly it is nuanced and difficult to perceive. I would have preferred a more secluded place for this pointer, but if you poke around the relevant part of the namespace presently given as mine in this note's header (it will be obvious is you visit), you'd probably begin to perceive them.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[MorePower]

SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Damn! I mean DAMN!
It should be blatantly obvious, he's punishing you for not giving him the information he wants!

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[0111 1110]

It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments What the hell are you on about? Since when do presidential candidates talk about what kind of judges they want to see appointed to SCOTUS? You "the majority rule of democracy will solve every problem" people make me laugh. Maybe if we had a national referendum with veto power over SCOTUS nominations or better yet referendum veto power over individual SCOTUS decisions you would have a point. Even if the US were a pure democracy (and we sure as hell are not) and could vote directly on everything it would still mean that as many as 49.9% of the population might think the decisions were ridiculous. Personally I think the least you majority rule folks could do when the discussion turns to SCOTUS is STFU because they are the least democratic aspect of our government. They are intentionally undemocratic.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[Scrameustache]

There are a few bright moments, too, including some handed to the Bush administration. Like the whole presidency?

Civility demands respect When they respect my rights, I respect their authority.
Otherwise I wish to see their blood refresh the tree of liberty.

Apparently, you were born yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

The Dems have always been hawkish until Clinton. FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson were ALL major hawks. FDR put us squarely into WWII though the country did not want to do that. Truman put us into Korea. While Eisenhower put us into vietnam, Kennedy escalated and then was going to pull out. Of course, he took on USSR via the cuban missle crisis. Johnson escalated vietnam Heavily. Carter was rebuilding our military after 'nam. He pushed for us to have a greater number of smaller ships, but reagan defeated that and pushed us back into battleships that were retired again. In addition, he pushed us heavily into stealth aircraft. However, he screwed up the iranian hostage (though there is enough proof that reagan cut deals with the iranians and kept our hostages there for another 9 months longer; f&^king traitors). Even the Abrahams tank got its start via carter. All in all, only clinton was dovish.

As to balanced budget, well, the last republican who cared about lowering the deficit was Poppa Bush, and Nixon in 68 was the last republican to balance a budget. Clinton balanced in 2000. reagan and W. both ran up huge deficits, and to a lesser degree, Bush I, Nixon and Eisenhower.

Want to keep your guns with republicans around? Yeah, right. Hard to do, when they spy on all the trades and transactions and know all that you do. Just because it is not in the open, does not mean that the feds are not tracking all this.

So what differences are there? Damn little. And how long has that gone on? Since 1980, i.e. more than 25 years. About the only real difference that I see is that the republicans are TOTALLY corrupt and do not care if anybody knows as long as they do not go to jail.

Seriously, there is NO real difference between you, a freaking right wing nut, and the vast majority of left wing nuts. Neither of you have the moral capability of doing the right thing for America.

Re:Apparently, you were born yesterday

[NotBornYesterday]

Dear hostile Anonymous Coward,

I'm disappointed you didn't reply with your name attached. Not because I want to flame you back, but because some of your points are worth a conversation, and frankly, if you're an AC, there's no telling whether I'm talking with one person or several, and therefore not much reason to try to engage in meaningful dialog.

that being said, I can see your points on Dems and foreign policy. Understand that in writing for brevity, I sacrificed nuance in my descriptions. However, I would still argue that on the whole, Dems are and generally have been more dovish than Republicans.

Corruption is no differentiator. Lots on both sides. The big difference is the Dems (IMHO) tend to have more subtlety and flair.

What in particular makes you think that I am a "freaking right wing nut"? A "freaking nut" ... yeah, sometimes. But I don't know about the right wing part. The truth is, I happen to support some things considered far right of center*, and other things considered far left of center*. Your ad hominem attack reveals more about you than I.

Regards,
NBY

* By "center", I am referring to the average centrist position here is the US. That means that it is a) very open to interpretation even here in the US, and b) probably considered to the right of average European "center".

Re:Apparently, you were born yesterday

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I sincerely apologize about the personal attack. That was uncalled for. I was tired and just got done with a hard 5 hour meeting where I was the one doing the calming down, which came after coding all day. I will say that normally it is RWN that tend to say that Dems are dovish while Pubs are hawks. So, yes, I was wrong.

With that said, About the only pub hawk in the last 25 years would be Bush I. He started the tear down of the DOD post wall. But he continued starwars in a sustainable fashion, which Clinton carried through on. Bush I also did the minimal needed to achieve Americas (and ultimately, the worlds) objective. That is a sign of a true hawk. The reason I say that, is it is obvious that he did not want to put us in harms way until there was no real choice. That is a man who obviously had seen war up close. OTH, reagan and Bush II never saw war and had little problems with sending our troops out. But reagan got squemish when our troops took a bloody nose in lebanon. He ran when he realized that he was going to have to pay a price politically for having decided to involve us in lebanon, showing his true colors. Basically, he was not a hawk. He was a GD bully.

Bush II is not a hawk. If he was, he would have realized what is involved in war. He put some of the most incompetent people in place. Breemer created this nightmare that we now have there. I have little doubt that W. invaded and OCCUPIED in hopes of controlling their oil. Recall when for the first 2 years, the DOD wanted to put in more troops and he said no. Likewise, he did not want to do nation rebuilding, but put troops and and companies in there to restart the oil pipelines. So, now, we have created a destablized region and have seriously burned out our troops. That is not a hawk. That is just total traitor that is helping himself and his companies to other people oil. May the fleas of a 1M camels infect him and his.

China is quietly gearing up for an attack. They have been trying to hide a submarine base and supposedly are cranking out a minimum of a Type 094 Jin-class new SSBN each year (that is a LOT). In addition, they are also building attack subs. But they have openly shot ground based lasers at ours and their own sats in efforts to blind them. It was obvious that the American sat that they shot, they thought was either dead or we were keeping quiet about (i.e. hidden). In addition, they destroyed a largish leo weather sat.. In and of itself, these are not a big deal. But the problem is that they are actively trying to hide all of this while hiding their budget. Their build-up is higher then even America or Hitler were pre-WWII (hitler spent 5 years re-building his military; FDR spent 3 years re-building us prior to entering the war). If W. was even the least bit hawkish (and just a little patriotic), he would not have invaded Iraq. He would be preparing for China's coming attack. Our next president may actually have to pull us out of Iraq sooner than we should. I am no fan of our being in Iraq, but I think that it is far better to leave them stable than situation they are in. All of the candidates have indicated that they are concerned about our military capabilities and will focus resources on it post W. I suspect that we will see more hawks in all 3 candidates than we see in W. or in reagan (or perhaps I should I so, God, I hope so).

Re:Apparently, you were born yesterday

[NotBornYesterday]

Thank you for your gracious reply. Your description of "hawk" is intriguing. I like your concept of a hawk being responsibly assertive (if I am reading you correctly) vs. my more common usage of 'more likely to wage war'. That offers a different way to look at things, and I will have to consider some of my positions in that light.

Our next president may actually have to pull us out of Iraq sooner than we should. I am no fan of our being in Iraq, but I think that it is far better to leave them stable than situation they are in. Agreed.

Although we in the US have had the technical ability to shoot down satellites for a long time, it was pretty obvious why we responded with a shoot-down of our own not long after the Chinese did theirs. We have each fired a shot across the other's bow, so to speak.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[postbigbang]

We might agree that we live free or die. As I have but one death to give, it'll be for something other than the phone company's foolishness under a boorish president's whim. There's better to fight for, methinks.

Yet civility requires tolerance. My 'rights' are unfortunately open to misinterpretation. But I forgive, otherwise my unyielding ways might be misspent. YMMV.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[Scrameustache]

SCALIA: And you say he's punishing you? What's he punishing you for? ... When he's hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn't say he's punishing you. What is he punishing you for?

Damn! I mean DAMN!

It should be blatantly obvious, he's punishing you for not giving him the information he wants! And since he's a judge supreme, we can't ascribe his statement of opinion on law to incompetence. We must therefore admit it was motivated by malice.

What?

[clint999]

Congress has the (sole) power to determine what is and is not illegal. Inherent in this is the ability to grant immunity. And as I have already noted here , the prohibition on ex-post facto laws does not preclude retroactive grants of immunity.

Democratic and Liberman are mutually exclusive

[vague_ascetic]

It is absurd that a person who refused to accept the democratic vote of his own party in the primaries, and then reentered the election as an independent who accepted major contribution from the other main party, and pulled all party support out from under their own candidate, would be referred to as being democratic.

Liegberman subverted the democratic process of his own chosen party, The Democrats. He aligned with the Dem. side, because the Senate rules force third party and independent members to pick one or the other, and all committee assignments come from affiliation. Lieberman would have aligned with the Republicans if they would have offered him a good enough deal on committees, but the didn't care about the weasel to toss him a decent bone. They know he's a solid pro-Iraq vote, and is a firm believer in giving extra-power to the government. He has at least been consistent in this, contrary to the Republicans who believe in empowering and supporting Republican President's overreaches, while castrating Democratic Presidents before he even has been inaugurated.

When even Bob Barr can no longer stomach being a Republican, you know the GOP has sunk far below the horizon on the field of honor. Moral Relativism is The Rectaltude of Republican Intent manifest obscenely in reality. What else can be expected from The Party of Public Potty-Peepers, who claim after their performances of soft-shoe routines at TeaTyme has become public knowledge, that they are not gay.

Re:Democratic and Liberman are mutually exclusive

[Dog-Cow]

because the Senate rules force third party and independent members to pick one or the other And this is exactly why every Democrat and every Republican should be killed in as gruesome a way as possible. The two-party system is a complete abomination and it is impossible to get rid of it without bloodshed. The very people who can change it never will. There is no greater evil in this world.

Re:Democratic and Liberman are mutually exclusive

[vague_ascetic]

Under normal circumstances I would wholeheartedly agree, but these are Interesting Times in a Chinese proverbial sense, and there need be a proper individual accounting for friends/enemies of liberty and the potentially corollary irrelevant meat that pops up to block line of sights on proper targets of opportunity. I rail about Republicans, but in truth even a few of them have stood to resist the worst of this tyranny, and many of the Democrats who have resisted, have done so not from a proper motivation, but instead pure-pro-partisanship-politiking. Some notables in the Senate: Hagel(R) hung true when push came to shove; Specter had been tireless in his pursuit of restored habeas corpus; Warner(R) a senior statesman with nothing to win or lose weakly folded after being the force behind McCain's anti-torture amendment; Reid(D) gets a pass because he's stuck to his guns about core points of liberty and called Bush twice the wimp his daddy was during the AUMF; Feinstein(D) and both Nelsons(DD) can go straight to hell; and Byrd(D) has washed the slate clean of his mountain of past travesties. Look around and read some of his Senate statements. They have been inspiring when it was the darkest.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[rohan972]

So I could paraphrase what you're saying as "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."?

flight of fantasy from reality

[vague_ascetic]

You're right that Democrats tax and spend, but Republicans spend without end, and foist the costs off onto the backs of future citizens. When is the worst of two paths to traverse?

You are no longer able to return to you former fantasy world within your distorted model of a bipolar polity. The GOP Gone Wild in D.C., when they possessed a 3 - 0 branch majority is well-documented as fact, that proves Republicans are nothing but scum-sucking lying thieves of liberty.

The Democrats are The Lamer of Two Evils.
Democrats are lowlifes,
but Republicans are creatures who emerged from the Sugarland Swamp used as the city's sump pond.
Have I made myself clear?

Re:flight of fantasy from reality

[ZorbaTHut]

Personally, I don't actually agree. They are equally awful in different ways - yes, the Republicans are driving this country into the ground economically, but the Democrats are trying to eliminate any possible way of fixing it in the future.

I think they both rather need to be eradicated.

$150,000 for EACH person spied on by AT&T...

[mikelieman]

Think about the consequences if fucking telecommunications companies for God's sake get away with (allegedly) violating our rights to privacy guaranteed by the FISA laws... One of the consequences is AT&T's evasion of the fiscal penalties for their CHOICE to unlawfully spy on people.

Which at this point is, I believe, about $150,000.00 for each person whose rights have been infringed.

I could use that money. I could fill up my car, what? 50 times!

Telecom immunity is fine

[Dog-Cow]

I have no problem with granting immunity to the Telecom operators. But only if the actual criminals (Bush and his administration) are immediately executed for treason.

A different view on the matter

[cold fjord]

Andrew McCarthy, the former Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted the 1993 World Trade Center bombers (including the "Blind Sheik"), has written The Case for Telecom Immunity . Worth reading.

Re:A different view on the matter

[Dog-Cow]

I don't care about the legality nearly as much as I care about the morality. I believe that no moral person could believe that spying on innocent people is in any way correct or responsible.

There is no difference between what Bush wants and what the KGB did in the USSR. It was legal for the KGB to spy on their citizens and perfectly legal for people to disappear or to be killed by KGB agents. Are you really going to argue that it's perfectly OK to head in EXACTLY the same direction because it's "legal"?

Anyone who agrees with McCarthy is a traitor to the human race and aught to be removed from it forever.

Re:A different view on the matter

[sumdumass]

If your only concerned with the morality of it, then I guess you have no problem with the immunity as long as you can say bad telecoms.

We aren't heading down the same path as the KGB or even previous US administrations have. We had a clear threat, someone mistakenly thought that was a way to protect against it. It wasn't and nevr has been claimed to of been about just any random sob. It has always been about people with connections to terrorist or suspected terrorist and the situation was more specifically narrowed down to only in situation where one part of the call was from over seas. That is in no way similar to the operations of the KGB or US administrations before 1968 when the first US wire tap laws regulating the government were created as a response to Berger V New York in 1967.

In fact, the fourth circuit court has actually ruled in United States v. Truong in 1980 that requiring a warrant for a wiretap in matters of foreign inteligence would create an situation that would "unduly frustrate" the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. There is quite a bit more to it then that si I would suggest looking it up if you have time. Here is a quick list article that has a few of the details and makes a pretty good case for the warrantless taps.

That doesn't settle for sure whether the president actually had the authority to do it or not. The question doesn't really seem to be if the president had the authority to spy on Americans for matters of foreign inteligence and national security but rather if congress is able to limit those powers. It just provides a case where existing telecom immunity according to existing law should already kick in. The main differences is whether or not they have to spend money in providing a preliminary defense before stateing what they claim to be obvous and how many times that must happen before it is settled. I personally think they should have the immunity not because I can somehow justify what they did but because someone in the government had justified what they did which means they were acting in the interest of the US when they complied. It is more of a matter of will they be there willing to help if we really do need them or will everything be challenged in a court exposing secrete programs (yes congress has secrete programs)and prolonging it to a point that the urgency is no longer present. I would hate to have something happen that could have been prevented if we could have gotten a tap and information during the time we spent in a court arguing that the warrant or emergency program was just. That might be a stretch of a what if scenario but I would rather impeach and administration then launch a barrage of lawsuits against companies who for all they knew at the time were cooperating with something that was legal and legit. We already know the lawsuits are specifically designed for the purposes of gathering information about the programs and screwing bush. It isn't like anyone suing is actually blaming the telecoms, they are just looking for political ammunition.

Learn to read.

[FatSean]

I'm not the one afraid that signing a petition will put me on some governmental 'black list'.

I signed the petition, not that it'll do much.

Mod Parent UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Score: +3, insightful analogy. But I would have rated it higher if it were about cars.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I see Scalia's point: He's saying if torture was punishment then it would be administered after it's been decided that a person is guilty of something, with the sole value of reprimanding someone for something they've done. He's also saying the use of torture in the Abu Ghraib case is seen as a means to an end (confession), therefore it is not a punishment but an interrogation technique. Stahl just needs to switch the conversation to a different theme, e.g. 1. torture doesn't work or 2. torture is immoral.

The Constitution doesn't apply anyway

[unassimilatible]

What Scalia should have said is that "the Constitution doesn't apply in Iraq or to Iraqi nationals." This is well-settled law, long before Scalia was on the Court. Non-US citizen not in US territory don't have Constitutional protections. But I don't expect anyone who believes that telcos acting in good faith after 9-11 to help the government track terrorist, and given assurances they wouldn't be sued, should in fact be sued, to be reasonable. The fine points of law only matter when they are on your side I guess, /.'ers.

Re:The Constitution doesn't apply anyway

[Scrameustache]

What Scalia should have said is that "the Constitution doesn't apply in Iraq or to Iraqi nationals." This is well-settled law, long before Scalia was on the Court. Non-US citizen not in US territory don't have Constitutional protections. 14th amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It specifically provides protection to BOTH citizens and any person within its jurisdiction.

The US constitution doesn't cover citizens of Uganda in the hands of Russian authorities, but it covers anyone in the hands of the US of A. And yes, a US military base in Iraq is within the jurisdiction of the US.

accepting that framing destroys real conservatism

[vague_ascetic]

Which posits a steadfast foundation, that is not tossed about in storms of change. It used to be that Conservatives performed a valuable service to The Nation in that they were a deep rudder keeping the ship of state from capsizing during course changes that brought the bow across the face of the shifting winds. Even in disagreement, conservatives were worthy of honor and respect, because they held their ground, planted firmly on what they posited was immutable truth, and even in the face of inevitable electoral loss, would not waver, or weasel.

This has not been the case for far too long now. It is men like DeLay, Abramahof, Vigeurie and Keene, colluding with preachermen of Christian apostasy, and former Trotskyists, who define contemporary conservatism. They have transformed it into a den of thieves, all willing to service a corporate member for pocket change. Not an ounce of honor within the whole lot of them. They loudly proclaimed Mr. Bush's true conservatism, until the outcome of the 2006 midterms became inescapable. Then they turned into renunciates claiming that the evil manifest from this present administration is not the spawn from their loins of mutated conservatism.

In a model of a linear polity, which has an everalways dynamic point 0, there can be no conservatism, it is all activism.

This newright from beyond the gates of hell is the cause for an American Governmental imprimitur upon acts of human torture. These are the thieves of habeas corpus. They are the molesters of The Dreamtime America, and they must be stopped dead in their tracks here and now, or The American Dream will cease to be.

The EU's polities are not binary

[vague_ascetic]

Comparisons such as this will not result in valid data. There is a strong force to condense all politics down to a boolean in America. Western Europe is arguably better, but their model has stopped evolving with the advent of a two axis data mapping. There is also a great difference between parliamentary systems which expose methods for providing a closer representation based upon popular vote. In America, it's winner take all, and this seriously impairs progressive ideas. In the American political environment, a party that does not have a cacophony arising from their politicians is engaged in extreme censorship antithetical to the will of a significant number of their membership.

Do not get high and mighty though. In the Netherlands, an inept clown of a movie producer named Geert is a party of one. German indecision in a state of electoral unrest conjured Merkel. The UK's PM exchange went from Poodle to Slug. Le Président de la République is a poseur crème pâtissière puffed up with pride with trophy wife a bigger bite than he can chew, who now is compelled to wear elevator shoes standing at her flat-soled feet's side.

you are an ill-imformed putz

[vague_ascetic]

Look around on this very thread, and you'll find another post of mine listing the Congressional votes for AUMF, and it clearly shows that there was less than half the Democrats voting assent.

Additionally, try actually reading the statements made by the politicians about their votes in favor of the AUMF, before you absurdly make the claim that it was a vote "for war". Furthermore it was not just the Democrats who did not read the the prewar NIE, very few Republicans read it either, nor was this primarily a fault of Congress as BuShills love to imply. It was instead another of the many obscene acts of this executive, that restricted even Congressional members' open access to it under false predicates of classification. Republicans have never been willing to step up to the plate when it was their turn to face fast-balls hight and tight. They are weasels and cowards who have stolen the people's liberty, all because the the derelict ass of a president officially responsible for the nation's defense on September 11, 2001, was one of them.

Lastly, might want to poke around about here, after noting the listed URL for home listed in the header of this note, before you go round making puffed up claims about my lack of knowledge in a ditto-headed fashion. Lies, Damn Lies, and the Terminally Republican fools who promulgate them. Continue on with your flatworlder revisionary distortions of reality, based upon a non-validating linear model of politics, never once understanding your predicament, nor coming close to comprehending the who what where when and how of it all. Are you really so stupid that you actually believe I was ever some limp-wristed hand-wringer from the left-side of the bipolar polity? Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re:you are an ill-imformed putz

[rhakka]

I count 17 democratic nays and 29 Yeas. Nice try though, "less than half" guy. Again, most voted for it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2 . Or is that some kind of cover up?

You may differentiate between an authorization for military force and war. I do not. When you authorize our president to kill people, that is war by any useful definition of the term as far as I am concerned. If you want to play semantics, go for it. You can dance around and excuse those who errantly made colossal errors in judgement. I do not. I regard war as a necessary evil in some cases, but I will not split hairs between military actions, police actions, and war and I will not excuse those who wield that power lightly. Our government pointing guns and bombs at people and killing them is war. But I have the freedom to see that clearly, because I am not a lawyer.

I never said it was *primarily* congress's fault. but the fact is, it could not have happened without them, and the democrats share culpability.

I am CERTAINLY not saying the republicans are better. They are both weasels and cowards. and you are wasting your time jumping to the defense of one of them.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Civility demands respect, even if we don't agree It's exactly your sort of compliance that all totalitarian states depend on.

Don't mod me up, because as someone who is not logged in, my words could not possibly have value, at least for the 95% of Slashdot who are sheep, despite all their posturing to the contrary.

There are three boxes : the soap box, the ballot box, and ...
soon it will be time for the third box. Some of you know which
box I am referring to, others will have to guess.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[postbigbang]

How droll. No one mods up an AC. Behind your anonymity sits a paranoid schizophrenic who knows nothing of how to live in this world... one whose tolerance is hides behind pseudo-eloquence.

Compliance my butt. Little separates us from anarchy without civility. Your allusions to 'the third box' are your fantasy and self-delusion. Instead of vague threats, how about honesty, concern for your fellow humans, and constructive discourse rather than your anonymity and aloofness, spittle with paranoia?

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[sgt_doom]

It's then incumbent upon us to vote to ensure our sentiments are hopefully followed on the next appointments.

The mistaken assumption is that there exists such an animal as an "honest election" in the USA today.

With the privatization (see Executive Order 12615 from the Reagan Administration) of the American election process, and the privatization of the American intelligence organizations, and the privatization of much of the American prison system, such fantasy-prone thinking as yours is quaint, but not anywhere within the realm of reality.

Re:For not answering? For being a bad man? For fun

[postbigbang]

Sorry, not a fantasy. Ever been a precinct committeeman? I have. I've watched it all, counted and cross-tabbed results, and watched them move uphill. A mountain of conspiracy theories is just so-much-denial. Jump in and participate. We need everyone. That means you, too.

Re:$150,000 for EACH person spied on by AT&T..

[ShadowsHawk]

$150,000 would be nice, but Uncle Sam would take 60% off the top and bail out the tellcoms.

Here's some of the Senators' reasoning

[vague_ascetic]

If you are really curious, here's a couple of links to Senate dissent against the immunity.

• Congressional Record: February 12, 2008 - Multiple Senators' statements
• Senator Richard Durbin - Congressional Record: February 28, 2008

OOOOoooooo..who's the tough guy?

[FatSean]

I hope someone you care about is wounded or killed by an Iraq Freedom Fighter. Trash like you makes me sick.